Creationist: What are your religious reasons for rejecting Evolution?

[Psudopod]

Part of being a mature student is: knowing the difference.

So how do you tell the difference? And how do you know you are right when you use a translation that's over a thousand years removed from the language spoken at the time of writing?

From what I understand Genesis is very poetic in hebrew. It was designed to be sung.

 

[AV1611VET]

So how do you tell the difference?

Several ways:

• You let the context decide.
  You compare Scripture with Scripture - (the Bible interprets itself).
  You read what Jesus said about it - if He said anything.
  Study and pray; study and pray; study and pray.

And how do you know you are right when you use a translation that's over a thousand years removed from the language spoken at the time of writing?

[bible]Psalm 12:6-7[/bible]

You take God at His word. Aren't you glad He gave it to us in English? Or would you rather no one have a Bible until they first learn Hebrew?

From what I understand Genesis is very poetic in hebrew. It was designed to be sung.

After 25 years of study, I've never heard that before.

 

[Psudopod]

Several ways:

You let the context decide.
You compare Scripture with Scripture - (the Bible interprets itself).
You read what Jesus said about it - if He said anything.
Study and pray; study and pray; study and pray.

So a combination of circular reasoning and praying until you are convince you have the right answer?

You take God at His word. Aren't you glad He gave it to us in English? Or would you rather no one have a Bible until they first learn Hebrew?

But I dont' believe he did. Nor do most of the Christians I know. Personally I don't believe God had a hand in the Bible at all, but those who do all seem to agree that it was though the original authors, not thoses copying and translating thousands of years later.

Transations are a wonderful. I don't speak Japanese fluently, but I watch plenty of stuff translated into my own language. However, I know enough of both languages to know that somethings just have an adiquate translation. You lose something when you switch between languanges.

There is nothing wrong with relying on translations, it is very hard to learn another language, but you do need to remember that you can't just switch words fromone to the other and not lose anything. Something's jsut don't translate. Other things can be translated in a number of different ways.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

From what I understand Genesis is very poetic in hebrew. It was designed to be sung.




After 25 years of study, I've never heard that before.

Large sections of the Old Testament were oral tradition long before they were written down. Even after this time they were still told outloud. The evidence that much of the OT is lyrical poetry, not just the Psalms is that the Hebrew has a beat and metric to it. This is partly to stimulate the memory of the teller and make it easier to remember and teach and partly the result of an oral culture that listens to the sounds of the words as well as the meaning of them.

The fact, that even today the Jews chant Scripture, should be evidence enough that the Bible was originally, at least in great part, an oral tradition. Compare this to Romans which is just as obviously a serious piece of writing that was not originally a song but a piece of argumentative, didactic writing.

A secondary evidence that the OT was original oral literature is the dominance of puns and sophisticated word plays, that make sense only if spoken. It is literature directed at an audience who interacted with the sounds of the words and the metric of the phrases.

It our modern terminology it is a one to many form of communication, not the one to one that dominates a reading culture. It was literally meant to be semi-chanted by a bard around the campfire to the entire community, and bears significant internal evidence to this.

 

[Asimis]

That was cheap, but don't bother to apologize.

Cheap? lol, I only pointed out what you (and other "literalists" say).

Part of being a mature student is: knowing the difference.

Show me where in the book that I quoted the author says "this is poetry" or something like that.

The part that I quoted sounds nothing like poetry.


As.

 

[AV1611VET]

So a combination of circular reasoning and praying until you are convince you have the right answer?

No, I pray to God, not myself.

But I dont' believe he did. Nor do most of the Christians I know. Personally I don't believe God had a hand in the Bible at all, but those who do all seem to agree that it was though the original authors, not thoses copying and translating thousands of years later.

Right --- we don't know what the Bible really says today, right?

All those passages that tell us we're sinners; and those passages that tell us to repent; and those passages that speak of a literal Hell; and those passages that tell us what we can and can't do?

I wonder how those got in there?

You lose something when you switch between languanges.

No --- it's the other way around --- you lose something when you stubbornly cling to a language that wasn't meant for you.

Imagine:

• The Goths clinging to the AV100 Koine Greek Version.
  The Anglo-Saxons clinging to the AV350 Gothic Version.
  The Wycliffe generation clinging to the AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version.
  The Tyndale readers clinging to the AV1389 Wycliffe Version.
  etc.

Something's jsut don't translate. Other things can be translated in a number of different ways.

That is a very weak argument. There are professional translators that make a living do this. If what you said were true, the UN translators would not be able to do their job sufficiently.

 

[AV1611VET]

From what I understand Genesis is very poetic in hebrew. It was designed to be sung.

Jesus would disagree with you.

[bible]Luke 24:44[/bible]

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Jesus would disagree with you.

[bible]Luke 24:44[/bible]

please read the postings more carefully.
you are misquoting me, i was quoting:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25769078&postcount=41

and bolded it to help people distinguish it.


your reply has nothing to do with the metrical lyrical poetic nature of much of the Hebrew Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me where in the book that I quoted the author says "this is poetry" or something like that.

The part that I quoted sounds nothing like poetry.

You quoted Ecclesiastes 3:18-20.

Ecclesiastes is the 4th of the 5 contiguous Books of Poetry.

It "sounds" nothing like poetry because it's Hebrew poetry.

In English, we have two types of poetry:

• parallels of time - (rhythm)
  parallels of sound - (rhyme)

Hebrew Poetry, on the other hand, has parallels of ideas.

Broken down as follows:

Completive Parallels = those in which the second member of the parallel concurs with the first, and develops it to a further point.

[bible]Psalm 96:1[/bible]

Contrastive Parallels = those in which the second member of the parallel contrasts with the first member.

[bible]Proverbs 3:5[/bible][bible]Proverbs 30:5[/bible]

Constructive Parallels = successive parallels are built up together into structural form until they unitedly express one complete idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

your reply has nothing to do with the metrical lyrical poetic nature of much of the Hebrew Bible.

And my replies never will, either; I don't speak in tongues.

 

[Psudopod]

No --- it's the other way around --- you lose something when you stubbornly cling to a language that wasn't meant for you.

How many languages do you know? It sounds like you're saying above that we should only have one.

I don't know much - I'm not a linquist. I've forgotten most of the French I studied at school, and my Japanese is very bad, but I know enough to know it's not a straightforwad one -to -one swap when translating things, especially into English.

English is a beautiful language, and its full of synonyms. With our history, we've picked up words from all over the globe and worked them into our speech. You can say things in many different ways, and while they still mean the same thing roughly, the nuances created by your choice of works can make a big difference.

I remember a task in English when I was young was to take a passage and, without changing the topic or context, change the flavour by replacing ajectives etc. So the original piece was a description of a bend in the river, described in such a way to make it seem warm and inviting, a place for kids to play. My version had it comign across as cold and dangerous. But if you were given 4 pictures, you would hav been able to pull out the right one from either passage.

I frequently watch at least two translations of Japanes programs. When translated by two different people, they are never the same, even though the words beign said in the original language are. In neither case is any of the story lost, but sometimes the words chose change the feeling of what is being said.

A good translator can get across what is beign said from one language into another. But unless you know that lanuage, you'll never be sure that they didn't miss anything. You have to take the translator at their word.

 

[AV1611VET]

How many languages do you know? It sounds like you're saying above that we should only have one.

My point is that you cannot stubbornly cling to yesterday's translation when God put a new one out, or you're going to be left behind.

Can you imagine us having to read the AV1568 Bishops' Bible, where "Jesus" is spelled "lesu"?

I'm glad God had another couple of "upgrades" for us!

 

[Tomk80]

My point is that you cannot stubbornly cling to yesterday's translation when God put a new one out, or you're going to be left behind.

Then why do you kling to the 1611 edition? God has put quite a lot of new ones out in the meantime.

Can you imagine us having to read the AV1568 Bishops' Bible, where "Jesus" is spelled "lesu"?

I'm glad God had another couple of "upgrades" for us!

Yet you stop with the upgrades 43 years later, instead of using a recent upgrade.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

AV1611VET

what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today's_New_International_Version
newly minted in 2005, by your logic one of the best versions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why do you kling to the 1611 edition? God has put quite a lot of new ones out in the meantime.

No, He hasn't. The King James (so far), is the final edition.

ALL other versions can be traced back thru to the corrupted Classical Greek - not the Koine Greek of the common people.

 

[Tomk80]

No, He hasn't. The King James (so far), is the final edition.

ALL other versions can be traced back thru to the corrupted Classical Greek - not the Koine Greek of the common people.

Yes, because those are earlier versions that, and because of that are closer to the original. So those are closer to what was originally written, and thus more accurate than the KJV. The KJV's accuracy is even more doubtful, as that itself is derived mostly from english translations of the Greek, instead of directly from the Greek sources. So it fails as most accurate on two counts.

The KJV is not the final edition. Current, later editions are more accurate, follow the original hebrew and Greek better and are written in a language more in line with everyday language. They are better translations then the KJV on many counts.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

No, He hasn't. The King James (so far), is the final edition.

ALL other versions can be traced back thru to the corrupted Classical Greek - not the Koine Greek of the common people.


this is not true.

KJV-NT* is from the Textus Receptus. A Greek maniscript primarily derived by Eramus from several primarily Byzantine sources.

This was before the advent of textual criticism which now groups texts into families. The TR is ignorant of the Alexandrian or Western family of texts, for example.

But the big point is that ALL Greek New Testaments are in Koine Greek not Classical. There simply is NO classical Greek NT. The author of this posting is simply ignorant of the textual criticism of the NT, and unfortunately is spreading this ignorance.

please do your own research start with:
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html
http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
on the topic of KJV and the TR

and
http://www.bible-researcher.com/title.html
http://www.ntgateway.com/resource/textcrit.htm
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/

on textual criticism and the NT.


* post edit for clarification

 

[Tomk80]

No, He hasn't. The King James (so far), is the final edition.

ALL other versions can be traced back thru to the corrupted Classical Greek - not the Koine Greek of the common people.


this is not true.

KJV is from the Textus Receptus. A Greek maniscript primarily derived by Eramus from several primarily Byzantine sources.

This was before the advent of textual criticism which now groups texts into families. The TR is ignorant of the Alexandrian or Western family of texts, for example.

But the big point is that ALL Greek New Testaments are in Koine Greek not Classical. There simply is NO classical Greek NT. The author of this posting is simply ignorant of the textual criticism of the NT, and unfortunately is spreading this ignorance.

please do your own research start with:
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html
http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
on the topic of KJV and the TR

and
http://www.bible-researcher.com/title.html
http://www.ntgateway.com/resource/textcrit.htm
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/

on textual criticism and the NT.

Rmwilliams, as far as I know, the actual KJV is mostly derived from already existing english texts. Those derive from the Textus Receptus. Am I correct in this?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Rmwilliams, as far as I know, the actual KJV is mostly derived from already existing english texts. Those derive from the Textus Receptus. Am I correct in this?

First, i should have been clearer in the earlier message, i am only talking about the NT not the OT. The TR is only a NT document.

Second, the KJV, in the NT, is primarily a translation from Eramus' text, which becomes known as the TR over the next several hundred years, it was not called the TR in the early 17th C, it was called Eramus' 1535 Greek NT.

I have a mental note that 60% of the KJV is identical to the Geneva Bible, however i do not have a reference at hand for this.
however http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/bibtabl.htm
is a good start.

My best understanding is that the KJV translators read the previous Tyndale and Geneva Bibles, looked at Eramus' text and made corrections as they were in disagreement with the English, often because of the Calvinism of the Geneva Bible.

It is not a new or de novo translation like the RSV of 1880's or the NIV now, but rather a revision of the English with close attention to the Greek.

so yes, you are substantially correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

The KJV's accuracy is even more doubtful, as that itself is derived mostly from english translations of the Greek, instead of directly from the Greek sources.

...

The KJV is not the final edition. Current, later editions are more accurate, follow the original hebrew and Greek better and are written in a language more in line with everyday language. They are better translations then the KJV on many counts.

Which Greek, Tom? Can you answer that?

Care to post Colossians 4:15 on here from the NIV for comparison?

Or is it much easier just to criticize?